My Parents Are Flat Earthers • Hacker News Board

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#201

Post by lisper » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 7:06 AM UTC

gbear605 wrote: post #200

lisper wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain , which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it. > Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe Wha…

So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out there that could do the brain-cloning”? Because sure, I agree with that statement. In your original comment you were referring to a generic afterlife. Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume…

> your proof that the afterlife can’t exist

I didn't say that it can't exist, I said that it doesn't exist. Very important distinction. Fusion reactors can exist, but don't.

> Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume the existance of one.

Again: why on earth would you assume that? People talk about warp drive too, but that doesn't license you to assume that it exists.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#202

Post by klibertp » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 11:04 AM UTC

gbear605 wrote: post #200

lisper wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything about a soul. And I never said that mind is a function of "some kind of computational substrate." I said mind is a function of brain , which is a very particular kind of computational substrate with very specific properties, one of which is that it is impossible (given current technological constraints) to make a copy of it. > Suppose there is a deity that knows everything about the universe Wha…

So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out there that could do the brain-cloning”? Because sure, I agree with that statement. In your original comment you were referring to a generic afterlife. Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume…

> Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective

I'd say it's more of a deist[1] perspective, which certainly is firmly rooted in Western culture and philosophical tradition. While it's not that surprising to have it invoked even on HN, assuming it as a given is a bit much. Especially in the context of hard-core empiricism[2] and materialism[3] - which are the other, but also significant philosophical traditions in the West - applied by lisper.

Personally, I agree with lisper - it is possible that the afterlife exists, but we have no theory which would explain how it could exist while also matching the observed reality, which leads to the conclusion that, to the best of our current knowledge, it's extremely unlikely that it exists. The same can be said for any other belief not grounded in scientific facts, including flat-earth theory, chemtrails, moon-landing hoax, anti-vaccine guys and so on, which is the point lisper is making. Once you leave the realm of sound theories with valid evidence, you're in a dream-land where you can meet James Bond, God, Donald Duck, Thetans and Xanu, chakra and Aang and Naruto, aliens running the White House and round-earth conspiracy - while different in many respects, they all lie outside of strictly defined empiric reality.

But, at this point - as noted in the first paragraph - we're rehashing the centuries-old discussion, and we're bound to this in a much less convincing and refined way than the famous philosophers, so maybe let's give it a rest?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#203

Post by gbear605 » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 2:36 PM UTC

klibertp wrote: post #202

gbear605 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is your proof that the afterlife can’t exist summed up by “brain-cloning technology is not within current human reach, and there’s no non-human thing out there that could do the brain-cloning”? Because sure, I agree with that statement. In your original comment you were referring to a generic afterlife. Common afterlives discussed involve non-human being(s) to run the whole thing, so I assumed that we could assume…

> Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective I'd say it's more of a deist[1] perspective, which certainly is firmly rooted in Western culture and philosophical tradition. While it's not that surprising to have it invoked even on HN, assuming it as a given is a bit much. Especially in the context of hard-core empiricism[2] and materialism[3] - which are the other , but also significant philosophical tra…

For clarity on my thought process: I had interpreted lisper’s original comment as “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists.” After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” The claim about no deity existing had been assumed implicitly in their original post. I hadn’t thought that it would be taken as a given, since we were discussing the truth value of religion. I’m now satisfied with the chain of logic now being strong; it just requires assuming the given that no deity exists.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#204

Post by lisper » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

gbear605 wrote: post #203

klibertp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, I do realize that that is a very western perspective I'd say it's more of a deist[1] perspective, which certainly is firmly rooted in Western culture and philosophical tradition. While it's not that surprising to have it invoked even on HN, assuming it as a given is a bit much. Especially in the context of hard-core empiricism[2] and materialism[3] - which are the other , but also significant philosophical tra…

For clarity on my thought process: I had interpreted lisper’s original comment as “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists.” After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” The claim about no deity existing had been assumed implicitly in their original post. I hadn’t thought that it would be taken as a gi…

> After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.”

No, that is not my argument. My argument is that it is just as easy to disprove religion as it is to disprove a flat earth, which is to say, very easy if your target audience is already on board and nearly impossible otherwise.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#205

Post by dwild » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

pmichaud wrote: post #90

I read quite a bit of the discussion here, and I’m struck: People railing against anti-scientific attitudes by spouting the first shit they made up that makes some intuitive sense to them about psychology and/or group dynamics. I wonder if anyone else sees the irony?

> People railing against anti-scientific attitudes by spouting the first shit they made up that makes some intuitive sense to them about psychology and/or group dynamics.

How is making hypothesis anti-scientific? If anything, it's the basis of science.

What's anti-scientific about flat-earther is how they ignore evidence. This is 100% what we discuss when we talk against flat-earther. Can you show me any comment here that ignore evidence?

You are free to argue anything that's being said here and to show evidence of any of this. This is part of the scientific process and it's alright.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#206

Post by gbear605 » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:09 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #204

gbear605 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For clarity on my thought process: I had interpreted lisper’s original comment as “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists.” After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” The claim about no deity existing had been assumed implicitly in their original post. I hadn’t thought that it would be taken as a gi…

> After what lisper’s said in responses, I see that their actual argument is “Religions aren’t true because no afterlife exists because no deity exists.” No, that is not my argument. My argument is that it is just as easy to disprove religion as it is to disprove a flat earth, which is to say, very easy if your target audience is already on board and nearly impossible otherwise.

I agree with that argument 100%.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#207

Post by tntn » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:48 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #189

tntn wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, sure, if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable because the government is putting hallucinogens in the water so you can't trust anything you perceive, or whatever. But if that is the case, it is impossible to prove or disprove anything, so it doesn't make much sense that you claimed flat earth is "not even close" to two religions in terms of difficulty of disproving (there can be no rank of…

> if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable It's not me going down that route, it's the flat-earthers. > Probably still you think Scientology and the Book of Mormon are "dumber" than flat earth theory simply because they sound weirder to you No. You are raising a straw man here. It has nothing to do with dumbness (though I do admit I find some aspects of Mormonism and many aspects of Scientlology t…

One final comment from me, then I'll shut up.

> overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife

I agree that there is no evidence that there is an afterlife. I do not agree that there is evidence that there is no afterlife. So in response to "is there an afterlife," I would say it looks improbable, but can't say for sure that there isn't.

In my mind, this stands in contrast to flat earth: for that, there is no evidence that the earth is flat, but there is also evidence that the earth is not flat. So I can say the earth is definitely not flat, because I can see it is round.

I think our point of disagreement is whether there is evidence that the earth is not flat, because one can come up with all kinds of scenarios to explain the observations while allowing the earth to be flat (hallucinogenic water, etc).

I don't expect to convince you of anything, just wanted to summarize how I think about this, for completeness. As 'klibertp mentioned elsewhere, at this point we are rehashing ancient philosophical discussions (and I'm doing it quite poorly), so let's call it quits (feel free to respond if you want, I'll read it, but won't respond).

It's been fun.

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#208

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 21, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #197

tntn wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about falsifying it to the people who believe, and probably nothing will change their mind. I'm talking about looking at the claims, determine what evidence would be sufficient to disprove them, and determining whether that evidence can be acquired. For flat earth, it's easy. I ask myself (not a flat earther) whether the earth is flat, walk outside and make any one of the many observations that indica…

But Thetans can be detected: they cause psychological problems, which is why people pay large sums of money to the CoS to exorcise them.

[deleted]

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#209

Post by lisper » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 1:13 AM UTC

tntn wrote: post #207

lisper wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you want to go down the route that nothing is falsifiable It's not me going down that route, it's the flat-earthers. > Probably still you think Scientology and the Book of Mormon are "dumber" than flat earth theory simply because they sound weirder to you No. You are raising a straw man here. It has nothing to do with dumbness (though I do admit I find some aspects of Mormonism and many aspects of Scientlology t…

One final comment from me, then I'll shut up. > overwhelming evidence that there is no afterlife I agree that there is no evidence that there is an afterlife. I do not agree that there is evidence that there is no afterlife. So in response to "is there an afterlife," I would say it looks improbable, but can't say for sure that there isn't. In my mind, this stands in contrast to flat earth: for that, there is no evide…

You should read this:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of...

Re: My Parents Are Flat Earthers

#210

Post by ykevinator » Tue, Jan 22, 2019, 1:21 AM UTC

squirrelicus wrote: post #176

ykevinator wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same. There is no logical difference between believing in flat earth and believing in spermless conception

There is more to Christianity than unbelievable fairy tales like spermless conception. Read Matthew. You'll be surprised how... American it sounds. Basics we take for granted like "the blind leading the blind" are scriptural and religious, and things that are easy to forget how to name and call out without the religion. Indeed, the foundation of capitalism, the right approach to differences in natural ability, and ho…

I'm not anti Bible, I just think belief in something despite evidence to the contrary is irrational and in this regard, belief in flat earth and the supernatural are equally irrational. We don't all have to be rational. Irrational people are not bad people. It's not immoral to be irrational. I love many irrational people in my circle of friends and family. But to believe in something despite evidence is called faith and faith and science cannot coexist because people of faith offer no condition under which they will acknowledge that their belief is incorrect. So with that rule set of logic, flat earth believers and believers in supernatural are in the same category, with love and respect.

As a side note, that the Bible is wise and moral is independent of its accounts of the supernatural being true. The supernatural can be explained by the time period in which it was written.